Evidence From Retractor Bulbi EMG for Linearized Motor Control of Conditioned Nictitating Membrane Responses

Lepora, Nathan F.; Mavritsaki, Eirini; Porrill, John; Yeo, C.; Evinger, Craig; Dean, Paul

doi:10.1152/jn.00210.2007

Cited by 12 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The average latency to CR onset was 50 ms, the latency to maximum response was 150 ms and the latency to offset was 240 ms. This was consistent with previously described Purkinje cell recordings [9] and also, allowing for delays due to impulse conductions and mechanical properties of the eyelid, with behavioural and computational studies [1,18,19]. In a few cases, the cells showed excitatory responses before and/or after the pause CR.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

Learning Stimulus Intervals—Adaptive Timing of Conditioned Purkinje Cell Responses

Jirenhed

Hesslow

2011

Cerebellum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classical conditioning of motor responses, such as the eyeblink response, is an experimental model of associative learning and of adaptive timing of movements. A conditioned blink will have its maximum amplitude near the expected onset of the unconditioned blink-eliciting stimulus and it adapts to changes in the interval between the conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. Previous studies have shown that an eyeblink conditioning protocol can make cerebellar Purkinje cells learn to pause in response to the conditioned stimulus. According to the cerebellar cortical conditioning model, this conditioned Purkinje cell response drives the overt blink. If so, the model predicts that the temporal properties of the Purkinje cell response reflect the overt behaviour. To test this prediction, in vivo recordings of Purkinje cell activity were performed in decerebrate ferrets during conditioning, using direct stimulation of cerebellar mossy and climbing fibre afferents as conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. The results show that Purkinje cells not only develop a change in responsiveness to the conditioned stimulus. They also learn a particular temporal response profile where the timing, not only of onset and maximum but also of offset, is determined by the temporal interval between the conditioned and unconditioned stimuli.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

Learning Stimulus Intervals—Adaptive Timing of Conditioned Purkinje Cell Responses

Jirenhed

Hesslow

2011

Cerebellum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, interstimulus interval (ISI)-dependent activity has appeared in Purkinje cells (Jirenhed et al 2007). This cerebellar activity ultimately drives the motor processes underpinning eyelid movement (Bartha and Thompson 1992;Lepora et al 2007Lepora et al , 2009Mavritsaki et al 2007). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To more fully characterize the time course of each CR (0.50-mm criterion), its offset time, and its duration (offset time 2 onset latency) were also computed (cf. Lepora et al 2007). In Figure 2, panel A shows the means for all four timing measures as a function of ISI for days 13-16.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing in trace conditioning of the nictitating membrane response of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus): Scalar, nonscalar, and adaptive features

Kehoe¹,

Ludvig²,

Sutton³

2010

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using interstimulus intervals (ISIs) of 125, 250, and 500 msec in trace conditioning of the rabbit nictitating membrane response, the offset times and durations of conditioned responses (CRs) were collected along with onset and peak latencies. All measures were proportional to the ISI, but only onset and peak latencies conformed to the criterion for scalar timing. Regarding the CR's possible protective overlap of the unconditioned stimulus (US), CR duration increased with ISI, while the peak's alignment with the US declined. Implications for models of timing and CR adaptiveness are discussed.This experiment builds on recent analyses of the timing of conditioned responses (CRs) in the rabbit nictitating membrane (NM) preparation (Kehoe et al. , 2009a. The theoretical aim of these studies was to inform models of NM conditioning, which assume that CR timing is mediated by a spectrum of microstimuli initiated by the conditioned stimulus (CS) (Desmond and Moore

show abstract

“…In addition, in those species with a third eyelid, there is the active contraction of the retractor bulbi muscle as well as a pressure force produced by eye retraction into the ocular orbit that squeezes the Harder's gland and passively displaces the attached nictitating membrane (NM) over the cornea (Berthier and Moore, 1990; Berthier et al, 1991; Bartha and Thompson, 1992a,b; Evinger and Manning, 1993; Lepora et al, 2007, 2009; Mavritsaki et al, 2007). The neural complexity of this motor sequence is also evident by the synergistic contributions of the recruited motor [RB motoneurons (Mns), OO Mns, and LPS Mns located in the accessory abducens, facial, and oculomotor nuclei, respectively] and premotor [the action of cerebellar interpositus nucleus via the red nucleus] neuronal units (McCormick and Thompson, 1984; Berthier and Moore, 1990; Gruart and Delgado-García, 1994; Pellegrini et al, 1995; Trigo et al, 1999; Morcuende et al, 2002; Delgado-García and Gruart, 2002, 2005; Chen and Evinger, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An agonist–antagonist cerebellar nuclear system controlling eyelid kinematics during motor learning

Sánchez-Campusano¹,

Gruart²,

Fernández-Mas³

et al. 2012

Front. Neuroanat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of two antagonistic groups of deep cerebellar nuclei neurons has been reported as necessary for a proper dynamic control of learned motor responses. Most models of cerebellar function seem to ignore the biomechanical need for a double activation–deactivation system controlling eyelid kinematics, since most of them accept that, for closing the eyelid, only the activation of the orbicularis oculi (OO) muscle (via the red nucleus to the facial motor nucleus) is necessary, without a simultaneous deactivation of levator palpebrae motoneurons (via unknown pathways projecting to the perioculomotor area). We have analyzed the kinetic neural commands of two antagonistic types of cerebellar posterior interpositus neuron (IPn) (types A and B), the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the OO muscle, and eyelid kinematic variables in alert behaving cats during classical eyeblink conditioning, using a delay paradigm. We addressed the hypothesis that the interpositus nucleus can be considered an agonist–antagonist system controlling eyelid kinematics during motor learning. To carry out a comparative study of the kinetic–kinematic relationships, we applied timing and dispersion pattern analyses. We concluded that, in accordance with a dominant role of cerebellar circuits for the facilitation of flexor responses, type A neurons fire during active eyelid downward displacements—i.e., during the active contraction of the OO muscle. In contrast, type B neurons present a high tonic rate when the eyelids are wide open, and stop firing during any active downward displacement of the upper eyelid. From a functional point of view, it could be suggested that type B neurons play a facilitative role for the antagonistic action of the levator palpebrae muscle. From an anatomical point of view, the possibility that cerebellar nuclear type B neurons project to the perioculomotor area—i.e., more or less directly onto levator palpebrae motoneurons—is highly appealing.

show abstract

Evidence From Retractor Bulbi EMG for Linearized Motor Control of Conditioned Nictitating Membrane Responses

Cited by 12 publications

References 64 publications

Learning Stimulus Intervals—Adaptive Timing of Conditioned Purkinje Cell Responses

Learning Stimulus Intervals—Adaptive Timing of Conditioned Purkinje Cell Responses

Timing in trace conditioning of the nictitating membrane response of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus): Scalar, nonscalar, and adaptive features

An agonist–antagonist cerebellar nuclear system controlling eyelid kinematics during motor learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About